Yet as the people were hoping and all were
deliberating in their hearts about John, whether or not he might be the Christ,

Προσδοκῶντος: PAPart, gms, προσδοκάω, 1) to expect
(whether in thought, in hope, or in fear) 2) to look for, wait for

διαλογιζομένων: PMPart, gmp, διαλογίζομαι, 1) to bring
together different reasons, to reckon up the reasons, to reason, revolve in
one's mind, deliberate

εἴη: PAOptative, 3s of εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist,
to happen, to be present.

1. The word προσδοκάω could be hope or dread. Because of the use
of the optative mood in the verb εἴη (“he might be the Christ,” I am interpreting the people’s
expectation as hopeful. The optative mood typically indicates a wish or a hope,
so I’m interpreting this as a positive thing.

John answered saying to all, “I baptize you
with water; but one who is mightier than I is coming, for whom I am not sufficient
to loosen the thongs of his sandals; he will baptize you in a holy
spirit/wind/breath and fire;

ἀπεκρίνατο: AMI, 3s ἀποκρίνομαι, 1) to give an answer
to a question proposed, to answer 2) to begin to speak, but always where
something has preceded (either said or done) to which the remarks
refer

λέγων: PAPart nsm, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak

βαπτίζω: PAI 1s, βαπτίζω, 1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of
vessels sunk) 2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make
clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

ἔρχεται: PMI 3s, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come

ἰσχυρότερός: NMS adj. ἰσχυρός,1) strong, mighty 1a) of living
beings 1a1) strong either in body or in mind 1a2) of one who has
strength of soul to sustain the attacks of Satan, strong and therefore
exhibiting many excellences 1b) on inanimate things 1b1) strong,
violent, forcibly uttered, firm, sure

εἰμὶ: PAI
1s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

λῦσαι: AAInf, λύω, 1) to loose any person (or thing) tied or
fastened 1a) bandages of the feet, the shoes,

1.
It is interesting that John describes Jesus as being “mightier that I.” We
typically think of John as this wild man of the desert and of Jesus as sweet
little baby Jesus, meek and mild. If John has called out the crowds as a “brood
of vipers,” is gathering a following, and has tax collectors and soldiers (the
money collectors and enforcers of the Empire in Jerusalem) asking him what they
must do in response to his message, imagine what the coming of “one who is
mightier” means to the current social order. It means that the one who says,
“Blessed are the poor in spirit” is the one who is stronger than even John, the
threat to Herod’s reign.

2.
Contrary to most translations, there is no definite article for holy spirit in
this verse. Sometimes I worry that we retroactively impose a fully developed
pneumatology onto texts that might have a much less developed one in play.

For whom the winnowing blade [is] in his hand
to cleanse his threshing floor and to gather the grain into his granary but the
stalks he will burn in unquenchable fire.

διακαθᾶραι: AAInf. [the online lexicons that I use do not have a definition
of this verb, so I’ll have to go to my office before looking it up in hard
copy. Clearly, however, it is made up of the prefix δια , often ‘through,’ and
the verb καθᾶραι , (catharsis) which means ‘to cleanse.’

συναγαγεῖν: AAInf συνάγω, 1) to gather together, to
gather

κατακαύσει: 3s FAI, κατακαίω, 1) to burn up, consume by
fire

1.
I’ve always been amused at those who take the latter part of this verse
literally, but not the former part. If hell literally is an unquenchable fire,
per this verse, then heaven is literally ... a granary? Perhaps we should
permanently exchange the word “literally” for “literarily” when speaking of the
Scriptures.

2.
The phrase πυρὶ ἀσβέστῳ (puri asbesto) is the second mention of “fire” of our
pericope, the first being the fire with which the coming one will baptize.
“Asbestos fire” seems a much more intensive fire. It strikes me as a colloquial
phrase of some sort. But perhaps two mentions of fire are the same and not
different. That is, perhaps the consummation of the stalks is a redemptive act
not a punitive one. The stalks will be tried/redeemed by fire (similar to Paul’s
use in I Corinthians 3), in order to purify, not to punish.

18 Πολλὰμὲνοὖνκαὶἕτεραπαρακαλῶνεὐηγγελίζετοτὸνλαόν:

Therefore, as he was summoning many others he
was evangelizing the people;

1.
I’m going against the grain (so to speak) on this one. The word “others” is
plural and accusative. The question is whether it is an adjective or a noun. If
it is an adjective, it needs a noun supplied, like ‘words’ (NIV) or ‘things’
(KJV). If it is a noun, it can be the direct object of the verb παρακαλέω.

2.
παρακαλέω, as the definitions show, could be a transitive verb, like ‘to
summons’ or an intransitive verb, like ‘to exhorting.’ If it means to summons,
it needs a direct object, in the accusative, like “many others.” Some
translations (like the ESV) simply make this participle into a noun –
“exhortations.”

3.
My take is the John is both calling disciples and evangelizing, not an unusual
two-fold ministry to New Testament readers.

4.
The use of the word “evangelizing” the prefix “eu” of which means “good,” makes
on wonder how John’s words in v.17 could be about an eternal hell.

Yet Herod the tetrarch, being refuted by him
concerning Herodias the wife of his brother and concerning many hardships which
Herod made,

ἐλεγχόμενος: PPPart nsm, ἐλέγχω, 1) to convict, refute, confute 1a)
generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted

ἐποίησεν: AAI 3s, ποιέω, 1) to make 1a) with the names of things
made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc. 1b) to be the
authors of, the cause

1.
One can translate πονηρῶν as ‘evil’ or as ‘hardships.’ When it is an adjective,
I almost always translate it as ‘evil. But, as a noun, it can have a slightly
different tone. What I want to avoid is making this seem that Herod’s ‘evil’ is
largely a matter of personal morality, overlooking how political Herod was.
Even the adultery with Herodias had political implications and is not just
another sexual affair among the rich and famous. By using ‘hardships,’ I am
interpreting John’s refutation of Herod to be much more serious than just
embarrassing him by calling him out over his illicit relationship, etc. I hear
John speaking truth to power, getting to the very heart of the Roman Empire as
Herod represents it.

20 προσέθηκενκαὶτοῦτοἐπὶπᾶσιν[καὶ]κατέκλεισεντὸνἸωάννηνἐνφυλακῇ.

added this also to everything [and] confined
John in prison.

προσέθηκεν: AAI 3s, προστίθημι, 1) to put to 2) to add

κατέκλεισεν: AAI 3s, κατακλείω, 1) to shut up, confine

1.
It’s too bad that whoever imposed verse distinctions broke up v.20 from v.19,
because they comprise one sentence. The main clause of the whole sentence is:
“Yet Herod the tetrarch added this also to everything and confined John in
prison.” The effect is that Herod (and Luke) sees John’s preaching as one cloth
with John’s denunciation of his political shenanigans and exploitations. Where
we often separate John’s “spiritual” message from his “political” critique,
Herod (and Luke) does not.

2.
By the way, in v.14, Luke says that soldiers came to John asking what they
should do. That had to be worrisome for the military leadership, right? It
sounds as if John was such a galvanizing leader that he was a real threat to
Herod, and not just a loud annoyance. I really believe that the problem is
Herod’s power, not his reputation.

1.
This is a very wooden, awkward attempt at a literal translation of this verse.

2.
Sheila Klassan-Wiebe makes notes: “Luke is not concerned about why Jesus was
baptized, however, nor is it important who baptized him. (Luke has already
recounted Herod's imprisonment of John and thus the connection between Jesus'
baptism and John is only implicit.)” I suspect that the use of aorist
infinitives in vv.21-22 is Luke’s way of setting this baptism back one or two
steps in his narrative to a moment before John was imprisoned. I don’t know 1st
century Greek habits well enough to say that for certain, but I suspect that is
the case. Either way, Klassan-Wiebe’s point is very well taken. She goes on to
note that Luke only mentions Jesus’ baptism as a subordinate clause, because it
is the revelatory event that happens after the baptism that is the point.
(Klassan-Wiebe, Sheila, "Luke 3:15-17, 21-22," Interpretation,
1994.)

3.
In light of Klassen-Wiebe’s comment, I think it is safe to say that antecedent for the implied “he” of the verb
“while praying” is Jesus. While Jesus is praying, the heavens were opened. In
the next verse, the voice uses the 2nd person singular “you,” making
this a bit of a conversation between Jesus and God.

2.
This seems to be mash up citation of Psalm 2:7 (“I will tell of the decree of
the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you”) and
Isaiah 42:1 (“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my
soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to
the nations”). It is a matter of endless speculation whether the gospel writers
presume that we know the OT well enough to know the contexts surrounding their
citations or whether the citation itself stands alone in rendering its meaning.

The
lectionary splits this reading up and takes out the part of John’s
confrontation with Herod and Herod’s response of imprisoning John. I suppose
the intent is to stay focused on Jesus and to save John’s confrontation with
Herod for the occasion when John is put to death.

One
might see the two stories differently and say that Luke is the one who takes
the story of John’s baptism of Jesus and interjects into it the explanation of
John’s confrontation and imprisonment. That is, perhaps the two stories floated
independently until Luke redacted them together. If Luke is the one who weaves
together the two stories, then there would be no reason to assume with
Klassen-Wiebe that John is not necessarily the one baptizing Jesus.

Just stumbled upon your translatio site. This is excellent. Thank you.

I am curious, I see you have translated ἄχυρον to stalk, and not chaff (as traditionally it is). Have you chosen stalk for a particular reason? Or do you take stalk and chaff to mean the same thing (the husk/bran of grain).

I ask, because stalk (as stem) seems a much better match to John's tree metaphor immediately preceding this. Though it may confuse the agricultural practice of separating the grain from the husk.

Hi Mark, I'm not being terribly precise from an agrarian point of view. Mostly what I'm trying to capture is that whatever debris is left on the threshing floor is what is being burned, because it has served its purpose. My response might have been influenced by many years of living in Iowa and seeing the harvested fields full of stalks when the ears had been harvested. I've seen images of farmers threshing their grain by tossing it up in baskets and letting the wind dispose of the husks, etc. as the grain falls back down by virtue of being heavier. That's kind of a fun image of the holy wind/spirit that is part of the the messiah's baptism. If you know more about the process that John has in mind specifically, I'd love to hear it. Until your question, I had not thought given it much thought. Thanks for writing.

If you want to leave a comment using only your name, please click the name/url option. I don't believe you have to sign in or anything like that by using that option. You may also use the 'anonymous' option if you want. Just be nice.

About Me

Blog Archive

What Is This Blog, Anyway?

This blog is a weekly translation of a text from the Revised Common Lectionary.It is my rough translation in bold with some initial comments in blue, all of which are subject to change as we journey together. That's why I welcome your comments.